BX 
 
 9078 
 .B78 
 1837 
 
LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 
 JUN 24 2005 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 I 
 
TESTIMONY AND REMONSTRANCE 
 
 REGARDING THE 
 
 MODERATORSHIP 
 
 OF 
 
 NEXT GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. JOHN BRUCE, 
 
 ONE OF THE MINISTERS OF ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH. 
 
 TO WUICn A lie ADDED 
 
 THE DECLARATIONS OF SEVERAL fflDIVIDUALS WHO WERE 
 PRESENT DURING THE DELIVERY OF DR. LEE's EVI- 
 DENCE BEFORE HIS MAJESTY*'s COMMISSIONERS 
 FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 WILLIAM WHYTE AND COMPANY, 
 
 BOOKSELLERS TO HER MAJESTY; 
 
 W. COLLINS, W. R. M'PHUN, GLASGOW ; J. DEWAR, PERTH ; 
 A. ALLARDICE, AND F. SHAW, DUNDEE ; A. BROWN AND CO., 
 P. GRAY, ABERDEEN ; AND A. GARDNER, PAISLEY. 
 
 1837. 
 
Edinburgh ;— frinted by Bai-foir and Ja( k, NWdry Street. 
 
JAN 21 1993 
 
 TESTIMONY AND REMONSTRANCE, 
 
 &c. 
 
 It is with extreme reluctance, and from nothing-, 
 I believe, but a paramount sense of justice, that I 
 give forth to the public the following" Testimony :— 
 
 It was, I think, in the month of February or 
 March last year, or at any rate during the sitting 
 of the Church Commission in Edinburgh, that, 
 returning home in company with my friend Mr. 
 Waddell, with whom I had been engaged in minis- 
 terial duty, we met Dr. Lee accidentally at the 
 head of the Cowgate. Whether it was our having 
 just been engaged in visiting the poor that suggest- 
 ed the conversation which is now considered im- 
 portant, I do not remember ; but of the substance 
 of the conversation itself I have no doubt what- 
 ever. 
 
 I distinctly remember, — because at the time it 
 both surprised and distressed me, and because in 
 the course of this intervening twelvemonth I have 
 very often made mention of it, — that Dr. Lee ex- 
 pressed with great keenness and determination his 
 dissent from Dr. Chalmers* views on the subject of 
 
Church Extension. He spoke of his own fixed 
 resolution to make an open exposure of them, and 
 drew from his pocket a book, wl.ich he told me 
 he had procured for that purpose from a surveyor 
 of taxes, and by which, in particular, he would be 
 enabled to shew, that the migratory habits of the 
 poor had been very much underrated by us. I 
 farther recollect, that my friend, Mr. Waddell, 
 attempted to convince Dr. Lee, that the poor are 
 by no means so migratory as he alleged ; while I 
 threw out the suggestion, that even if they were as 
 migratory, or even many times more so, that 
 would, instead of disproving Dr. Chalmers's system, 
 prove much more impressively the great need of 
 resorting to it. I do not think that Dr. Lee dis- 
 sented explicitly and altogether from that opinion 
 of mine ; but he certainly expressed some doubts 
 of it as debateable, and led me to believe that he 
 looked upon it with dislike ; and observing him 
 still firm to his purpose of confuting Dr. Chalmers, 
 and seeming to glory in his having obtained the 
 means of doing so most effectually, I asked him 
 to consider, that while it is proverbially natural 
 and allowable for all Doctors to differ, it must be 
 especially perilous in these times for our Doctors to 
 dispute. 
 
 My conviction is, that at that time Dr. Lee was 
 making no secret of his being as hostile to the views 
 of Dr. Chalmers, to some at least very large and 
 indefinite extent, as the most zealous of the volun- 
 taries ; and though I cannot pretend to quote his 
 words, my general recollection is distinctly to this 
 
purpose, that he spoke of them to me thus openly 
 on the street, as hig-hly objectionable, or rather as 
 visionary schemes, betraying ig-norance of facts ; 
 and altogether I felt convinced from that conversa- 
 tion, that he had set himself to the task, not only 
 of establishing his own views, but also, and very 
 especially, of confuting Dr. Chalmers', and had been 
 rummaging everywhere for materials to aid him 
 in it. 
 
 These are the circumstances which I feel con- 
 strained to publish. I have received from Mr. 
 Waddell a communication from which it will be 
 seen that his recollection of them accords with my 
 statement, and I proceed now to prevent miscon- 
 ception regarding my own views of its import. 
 
 I wish then to state distinctly, that neither from 
 that conversation, nor from others which I have 
 either held or heard of, and which being of a more 
 private, and more nearly confidential nature, 1 
 never would reveal without permission — from no 
 information, in a word, that I ever received, was I 
 ever led to believe that Dr. Lee is an enemy to 
 Church Extension, or even a lukewarm friend. 
 All I ever said or thought of him, in regard to this 
 matter, is neither more nor less than I find him 
 saying of himself in that passage of his evidence 
 which appears in the statement of his own sup- 
 porters, who have printed it thus : — " I have no 
 favourite theory to support, and have engaged less 
 than most others of my profession in the agitation 
 of some of the questions which have lately been so 
 
4 
 
 keenly discussed, not because 1 think these ques* 
 lions unimportant, or because I regard them with 
 indifference, but because not being able altogether 
 to agree Avith those whose general views I am dis- 
 posed to prefer, / have been unwilling to come 
 into public collision with such as have a most laud- 
 able object in vieiv, while at the same time they may 
 have adopted opinions different from mine in re- 
 gard to the best method of attaining that object." 
 
 In this passage of Dr. Lee's evidence, as publish- 
 ed and marked very emphatically by his own friends, 
 I found a confirmation of ray pre-existing belief, — 
 namely, that he is zealous for Church Extension, 
 but only in his own way, and dislikes especially that 
 plan of it which the Church approves, and of which 
 she has constituted Dr, Chalmers the guardian, be- 
 cause to him she owes it. This appears to me the 
 fair and obvious import of that passage, even taking it 
 by itself, insomuch that I never should have thought 
 it necessary to confirm this interpretation either by 
 the testimony which I have just delivered, or by the 
 declarations which are here subjoined, if the support- 
 ers of Dr. Lee had not attempted to put upon it an- 
 other and very different construction. But it is just 
 because Dr. Lee's attachment to the Church, and to 
 aChurch Extension of his own, is unquestionable, that 
 I look upon his proposed Moderatorship with sus- 
 picion and alarm. It is just because, instead of de- 
 crying all manner of Church Extension, he would 
 zealously patronize something which is known to be 
 different from the adopted plan of the Church, that 
 I regard him at this juncture as more dangerous 
 
than a Voluntary. Nor can I forbear from pro- 
 nouncing- it an exceeding- great indiscretion in any 
 one who knew of Dr. Lee's having expressed him- 
 self as in the passage just quoted, to have given out 
 to the church, that he knew " Dr. Lee to be most 
 cordially interested in the promotion of the great 
 scheme of Church Extension in ivhich the Church 
 is at present engaged^* 
 
 There is reason to hope, at least, that after the 
 disclosure ofthat mass of evidence which the Church 
 Commission has been accumulating-, the enemies of 
 all Church Extension, will no long-er be listened 
 to. The general question will, we confidently 
 trust, be held settled from that moment beyond all 
 possible controversy. But who can divine what 
 new controversies may be agitated about the special 
 merits and demerits of the special scheme to be act- 
 ed on, if we shall have called to the chair an indi- 
 vidual with objections of his own, and these in his 
 peculiar view so grave or so various, that up to 
 this moment he has refused to co-operate with us, 
 and that notwithstanding all his conviction of the 
 necessity of Church Extension, and all his zeal for 
 the Church. Grant that we have forthcoming 
 evidence for the general measure, most urgent, 
 and a government most favourable, and yet with 
 a Moderator of such known and acknowledged 
 singularity as respects his views of our particu- 
 lar scheme, the period of postponement may be 
 extended indefinitely. Objections and difficult 
 ties, even were they in themselves of no mo- 
 ment, would be entitled to a fair hearing, because of 
 
6 
 
 the authority, and the undoubted honour and the 
 friendliness of the party from whom they proceed. 
 And thus we might find, that after the main cause 
 had triumphed, and our enemies every one of them 
 had quitted the field, we had only shifted the con- 
 troversy — that it had degenerated into a competi- 
 tion still more unseemly, and many times more in- 
 terminable, between the Extension scheme of the 
 Moderator, and the Extension scheme of the Church 
 — and that the government, who never once had 
 dreamed of arbitrating between other parties than 
 ourselves and the Voluntaries, till we chose that 
 Moderator, felt themselves then impeded by another 
 obstacle altogether, having to weigh well and to di- 
 gest all his diflSculties, which would require so much 
 longer time, if, as is too probable, the number of 
 them was even then luitold, and the nature and 
 extent of them it might be difficult to define. 
 
 In all this it will be seen, that I am merely illus- 
 trating the ground of an apprehension which 1 sug- 
 gested to Dr. Lee himself, when, on the occasion 
 referred to, I spoke to him of the danger of internal 
 disputes. And when his friends demand of us in 
 their pamphlets, as they do somewhat exultingly, 
 whether we would exclude a distinguished man 
 from the chair, merely because, while cordially at 
 one with us on the main and the grand object, he 
 differs on certain points " regarding the best method 
 of attaining it -" I answer, that I certainly would 
 exclude any man from the chair whose differences 
 from us are in his own view so momentous, that 
 he has hitherto stood aloof, because dreading to 
 
come ^* into public collision with us,*^ And I would 
 exclude such a man all the more anxiously, that, 
 appearing- in the person of Dr. Lee, no one dares 
 despise him. Let who will blame the Government 
 for demurring- to the objections and the doubts 
 and the difficulties of such a Moderator, I for one 
 never should. On the contrary, should they dismiss 
 his objections without canvassing- every one of them 
 after he was Moderator, I should say, that they 
 had treated the Church, throug-h her representative, 
 far otherwise than they had any title to do . And 
 if they did entertain them, I should as confidently 
 say, that all the delay and the distress of an unseemly 
 and everlasting- wrang-le upon points and particulars, 
 however insig-nificant, the Church herself had to 
 answer for, because having- placed a distinguished 
 man in the chair, who had warned us of his dread 
 of " a public collision" with us, and who as her 
 Moderator had acquired a right to be listened to 
 on every jot of the controversy. 
 
 All this may seem to my friends on the other 
 side quite visionary and extravagant : But I tell 
 them in reply, that had they proceeded with more 
 caution, both they and we would have been saved 
 the pain of this most unedifying and no longer guilt- 
 less dispute. They plead that they were committed 
 and had gone too far to recede, because from not 
 happening to participate in Dr. Chalmers' fears 
 when he warned them of the danger, they were not 
 as free as he was to recall their off"er of support. 
 In this, I say, appears their extreme lack of cau- 
 
tion. Every thing-, since the date of that warning-, 
 has proved the solidity of that, in tlieir view very 
 slender evidence, from which Dr. Chalmers inferred 
 the danger. And even if he had specified to them no 
 evidence at all, can they doubt for a moment that the 
 Church would have honoured them for deferring- to 
 his alarm. It was plainly in the tenor of our com* 
 mission as the auxiliaries of such a man, that we 
 should beware of doing- any thing- to discourage or 
 obstruct him. And, without meaning either to doubt 
 their zeal, or to depreciate the generous services, 
 which, more especially, the reputed author of Tlie 
 Statement has rendered to the Extension cause, — I 
 say, of all of us put together, that our place in 
 that matter, is that of secondaries and subordinates. 
 And it ill-becomes those to claim the pre-eminence 
 now, and, talking lightly of Dr. Chalmers' services, 
 to magnify one another, who know as well as I do, 
 that there was a time, not long distant, when with- 
 out his presiding genius, they absolutely could do 
 nothing. They cannot have forgotten his indefati- 
 gable and incessant labours, and that too at a time, 
 when having quite over-wrought himself in another 
 department of the Church's exigencies, he came to 
 her help in this, just because she herself had said, 
 that under God, it depended on him. They cannot 
 have forgotten how glad they were in those days 
 to avail themselves of his unrivalled name and his 
 inexhaustible energy, when, with one consent, they 
 devolved upon him the whole intellectual toil of 
 corresponding with, and memorializing and animat- 
 ing the ministers of a thousand parishes, because, 
 
of all men living, he was best fitted to do it. They 
 cannot have forgotten, for the whole world has 
 heard of his enterprises beyond the chiu'ch, when, 
 not with the Legislature only, but with the Honour- 
 able and the opulent throughout all the land, did 
 that most simple-hearted, self-sacrificing servant of 
 Jesus Christ, task himself night and day to excite 
 an interest like his own in the people's salvation. 
 And knowing, as his accusers do, that though more 
 or less directly, all our success is due to him, he has 
 shewn himself to this hour, most unassuming in all 
 his dealings with us, and as superior to all common 
 men, in the simplicity and godly sincerity of his char- 
 acter, as in the gigantic strength and majesty of his 
 genius, I ask if they are not ashamed, — I ask if they 
 have no remorse at having most grossly insulted 
 him, and charged him publicly with almost every 
 thing which his soul abhors ; and that just because, 
 seeing farther th.ai they did into the hazards of the 
 church's enterprise, and underlying a responsibility 
 regarding it many times greater than any of us all, 
 he braved not only the world's obloquy, but even 
 THEIR IMPUTATIONS, rather than betray his trust, 
 and suffer that cause to be hindered, by the post- 
 ponement of Avhich from year to year innumera- 
 ble souls must be for ever lost. 
 
 Imightenlarge here on the aggravations of theout- 
 rage referred to, but I forbear, partly because it wilj 
 receive from other and abler hands a most thorough 
 exposure, and partly also because I know that some 
 at least are ashamed of having acted in this matter, 
 so utterly unlike themselves, and I believe far bet- 
 
10 
 
 ter of all of them than to question their having" felt 
 compunction. But it is not enough that they re- 
 pent in secret, and that this one and that other tells 
 me he has nothing to say. Justice and truth de- 
 mand, and doubtless the Church expects that their 
 retraction shall be as ample and as notorious as they 
 have made the charge. And I trust they will not be 
 so unfair to Dr. Chalmers, or so unwise for them- 
 selves, as to leave it to the leaders of that over- 
 whelming majority of which they prophecy, not 
 merely to appoint a choice Moderator, but to pro- 
 nounce that censure which will then have been just 
 rather long deferred. 
 
 In publishing these sentiments, I am at least not 
 chargeable with any undue precipitancy, and having 
 cast no reflection on the motives of other men, I 
 shall scarcely attempt to vindicate or protect my 
 own. For Dr. Lee, both as respects his character 
 and accomplishments, I cherish still, as I ever did, 
 great esteem and regard ; nor is there one man al- 
 luded to, to whom 1 feel otherwise than as a friend 
 and brother. But from the very nature and con- 
 stitution of human affairs, there must sometimes 
 arise questions of sternest justice between man and 
 man, which lie utterly beyond the reach of all sta- 
 tutory law, and for the attempted settlement of 
 which, therefore, in righteousness, each of us in his 
 place is held responsible. And believing assuredly 
 that this is one of those questions, and that I have 
 been called upon to do this much in regard to it, 
 through the backwardness of several witnesses, who, 
 in this as in all similar cases, have been deterred by 
 
11 
 
 reasons, satisfying to themselves no doubt, from 
 standing- forth for the truth, I have endeavoured to 
 do it, though at no small sacrifice of my personal 
 comfort, and well-knowing, that it may provoke for 
 a time some unpleasant coldness towards me on the 
 part of several whom I greatly esteem. Nor can 
 I think this resolute discharge of duty uncongenial 
 with the exercise of the gentler virtues, when I read 
 how it is written of the meekest of all the men 
 that ever lived upon earth, that when he spied an 
 Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, he slew the Egyp- 
 tian, and buried him in the sand. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 No. I. 
 
 EdinburgJi, 1th March iSSt. 
 
 My Dear Sir, — In replying to your infjuiries respecting the evi- 
 dence given by Dr, Lee to the Church Commission, I have to regret, 
 that my i-ecollection of the statements made on that occasion is very 
 imperfect and indistinct. I feel no hesitation, however, in affirming, 
 in answer to your first inquiry, that the drift of the Doctor's declara- 
 tion was, that the local or parochial system is inapplicable to large 
 cities — that in Edinburgh, and especially in such districts as the 
 Cowgate, that system is neither expedient nof practicable — that 
 its impracticability is owing partly to the hopeless poverty in which 
 the poorer classes are generally sunk, but chiefly to the migratory 
 habits of the people, a great proportion of whom (I think he said 
 two-thirds) change their residence once every year, and, in many 
 cases, once every month — and that on these points he differed from 
 many of his brethren, for whom personally he entertained a high 
 respect. This appeared to me the drift of the Doctor's statement. 
 It is possible I may have misapprehended his meaning ; but sure I am, 
 I have not, in the slightest degree, intentionally misrepresented his 
 sentiments. 
 
 With regard to the bearing of Dr. Lee's evidence on the General 
 Assembly's Church Extension Scheme, which I conceive to be the 
 object of your second inquiry, my impression, when I heard it de- 
 livered, was, and still continues to be, that, if not intended to be de- 
 cidedly hostile, it was at least calculated very seriously to interfere 
 with its progress and success. 
 
 I beg to say, in reply to your third inquiry, that I recollect of 
 having been distinctly aware beforehand, that Dr. Lee intended to 
 give some such evidence to the Commission. Besides having heard 
 it repeatedly mentioned by others, I had been more than once inform- 
 
13 
 
 ed by the Doctor himself, who did not then attempt to conceal his 
 views, that he was determined, before the Commissioners closed their 
 proceedings in Edinburgh, to expose the " absurd" statements made 
 to them by Dr. Chalmers a few days before. I met him, if I mistake 
 not, several times, in eager prosecution of this object ; and on one 
 occasion especially, when in company with yourself, Ave found him, 
 as you may remember, at the head of the Cowgate, on a tour of dis- 
 covery, and, with a tax-gatherer's survej^ to guide him, exploring that 
 dark and desolate wilderness, for the avowed purpose of collecting 
 materials by whicli he might be enabled to disprove the statements, 
 and confound what he termed the wild and chimerical theories of Dr. 
 Chalmers regarding the parochial system. 
 
 I have only to add, in reply to your last inquiry, that if you deem 
 my testimony of any importance, unwilling as I am to appear before 
 the public in this or in any controversy, I feel that I should be acting 
 a cowardly, if not a treacherous part in the cause of truth and right- 
 eousness, and doing injustice to that great and venerable man to 
 whom the church and the country owe so much, were I to withhold it. 
 
 I remain, &c. 
 
 David Waddell. 
 
 To the Rev. John Bruce. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Extract of a Letter from the Rev. Thomas Wilson, Minister of 
 Friockheim, dated Friochheim, 21th Feb. 1837. 
 
 I am sorry that I cannot pretend to furnish you with any part of 
 Dr. Lee's evidence before the Church Commission. At the same 
 time, I have no hesitation in stating, that it was my impression when 
 I heard it, and it is my impression still, that in its spirit and tendency 
 it was directly in the teeth of the evidence of every other Churchman 
 that I heard examined. It seemed to me to have an especial refer- 
 ence to Dr. Chalmers' evidence ; to be, in short, just a kind of coun- 
 ter statement, by which, especially, the whole that Dr. Chalmers had 
 said respecting parochial arrangements in large towns, was to be com- 
 pletely upset. But while it had this leaning, it bore upon the ques- 
 tion of church extension generally. I felt, in common with others, 
 that Dr. Lee did more to damage that question, than any of all the 
 Voluntaries who huddled in their miserable statistics about the same 
 time. 
 
 I believe that the few extracts of Dr. Lee's evidence which Dr. 
 Chalmers has published in his Conference, give a most correct view 
 
14 
 
 so far as they go, of that evidence. I recognise in every one of them, 
 at least the substance of answers given by Dr, Lee, if not the ipsis- 
 sinia verba. 
 
 Now, my dear sir, if you think that this statement will be of any 
 service, you are at perfect liberty to make any use of it you choose. 
 
 No. in. 
 
 Statement by Robert Johnston, Ju7i. Esq. W.S. 
 
 At the time Dr. Lee gave his evidence before the Religious In- 
 struction Commissioners, in March 1836, I expressed my opinion of 
 its tendency and bearing on the extension scheme, to a number of in- 
 dividuals, in a very decided manner ; and having been now asked to 
 state more formally, what ray impression of that evidence was, I feel 
 constrained to compliance, whatever sacrifice of mere personal feeling 
 it may cost, by a sense of what I consider to be due to the one of the 
 two parties, with whose impressions, notwithstanding all that has 
 been said on the other side, my own still correspond. 
 
 I heard only a portion of Dr. Lee's evidence, on, I think, the 1 8th 
 of March, and the whole of an additional statement made by him on 
 the following day. 
 
 With the exception of the close of his evidence, he seemed to me 
 to confine himself to a statement of facts in proof of the migratory 
 habits of the poorer classes, without pointing out the relations of these 
 facts to the questions to be investigated by the Commission ; but at 
 the same time I was convinced, from what I heard, that its tendency 
 was to give an exaggerated view of the difficulties in the way of the 
 application of the parochial system to large towns, and, in the circum- 
 stances in which it was delivered, to interpose obstructions in the way 
 of the church extension scheme. 
 
 If there had been any doubt upon my mind of the injurious ten- 
 dency of Dr. Lee's evidence with reference to that scheme, it would 
 have been removed by its conclusion, when he left the loose and un- 
 guarded facts which he had stated, to produce their full effect upon the 
 minds of the Commissioners, and avowed in language now before the 
 public, that he had not engaged so much as most others in the extension 
 scheme, and other questions, because if he had done so, he must have 
 come into collision with those whose general views he preferred, since 
 though they had a most laudable object in view, they had adopted 
 different opinions from his in regard to the best method of attaining 
 it. : 
 
15 
 
 If Dr. Lcc had propounded l^is theory, and particularized all his ob- 
 jeotions to the theory of the Church, their importance would have 
 been more easily ascertained, and the efiFect of his evidence, as it ap- 
 peared to me, would not have been half so hurtful to the success of 
 the scheme. I know that the evidence was anticipated by the friends 
 of Church Extension with apprehension, while, by some of its op- 
 ponents it was looked forward to with hope and expectation. It has 
 since been frequently a subject of conversation, but I have only heard 
 one opinion respecting it, except from Dr. Lee's immediate friends 
 in the present controversy. And I must confess that 1 read with no 
 ordinary surprise, statements from one of tlieir number, to the effect 
 that its nature and tendency were not injurious, but favourable to the 
 scheme. 
 
 In farther proof of the impression of Dr. Lee's evidence upon my 
 mind, I think it right to state, that while a few weeks before it was 
 delivered, I had attended a meeting of several individuals, generally 
 members of the Assembly, with the view of taking steps for getting 
 Dr. Lee made Moderator this year, and coucurred with the resolution 
 in his favour ; yet, after hearing his evidence, and being unable from 
 it, or by means of any inquiry, to ascertain even the extent of his ob- 
 jections to " the Extension Scheme, in which the Church is at present 
 engaged," ray feelings with reference to Dr. Lee's appointment as 
 Moderator, in consequence underwent a very considerable change. 
 
 Robert Johnston, Jun. W.S. 
 
 2, Scotland Street, 
 6ih March 1837. 
 
 No. IV, 
 Statement by P. C. M'Docgall, E&q. 
 
 As I have been desired to state my impression of the object, and 
 bearing upon the General Assembly's scheme for Church Extension, 
 of that part of Dr. Lee's evidence before the Commission for Religious 
 Instruction, which I happen to have heard, and whether I had pre- 
 viously any anticipations of its nature and import, I feel no hesitation in 
 complying, so far as my recollection will enable me, with this request. 
 
 The only part of Dr. Lee's evidence which I had an opportunity of 
 hearing, was a long written statement which he read to the Com- 
 missioners on one of the days of his appearance before them. 
 
 My having been present at all on the occasion referred to, was 
 
16 
 
 owing' merely to the accidental circumstance of having fallen in, 
 upon the street, with a friend who asked me, whether I did not mean 
 to attend the meeting of Commission on the day in question, or had 
 not heard that Dr. Lee was then publicly to refute Dr. Chalmers' 
 previous evidence and notions respecting the applicability of the 
 Parochial System to large towns. 
 
 With the nature of Dr. Chalmers' opinion generally on this subject, 
 I was long before pretty well acquainted, and had even listened to a 
 considerable part of his examination relative to it, before the Com- 
 missioners. I now heard this announcement with, I must confess, 
 to say the least of it, very considerable astonishment, and determined 
 upon immediately attending. 
 
 The impression, therefore, which the delivery of Dr. Lee's written 
 statement produced upon my mind, — listening to it as I did with a 
 strong feoling of surprise, if not of indignation — it is but fair perhaps 
 here to mention, may, with some measure of justice and plausibility, 
 be objected to, on the ground of previous bias. I can only say, that 
 of his cordiality to the actual and specific scheme of Church Exten- 
 sion presided over by Dr. Chalmers, the impression Vi'hich it left upon 
 my mind was certainly any thing but favourable. 
 
 With regard to its precise bearing on the General Assembly's plan, 
 I cannot, at this distance of time, so far tax my memory as to be able 
 to give any very minute or particular ansucr. Nor, indeed, do I be- 
 lieve that I could have done so at any time, even had I been questioned 
 on the point immediately after the reading of his statement was over, 
 and that for some reason which I shall presently mention. 
 
 The main drift of it seemed to be, to demonstrate the great and fre- 
 quent fluctuations of residence among the poorer classes, in some of 
 the more crowded districts of the Old Town of Edinburgh ; with, how- 
 ever, a sufficiently intelligible reference throughout, as I thought at 
 the time, to the previous evidence of Dr. Chalmers on the same sub- 
 ject. But to what precise extent Dr. Lee himself conceived that his 
 facts and statements were, if admitted to be correct, invalidated, or 
 otherwise affected Dr. Chalmers' great general principle, I was utterly 
 unable to discover at the time, notwithstanding every possible effort 
 of attention ; nor have I ever since been able to comprehend. His 
 whole paper, indeed, seemed to me excessively confused, feeble and 
 desultory. And this is the reason why I never chai-ged my memory 
 with the facts or the reasonings which it contained, beyond the time 
 during which I listened to the reading of it. Having failed, as it did, 
 to convey to my mind any distinct or satisfactory idea of its precise 
 object and argumentative 'import, I was at no pains to retain it after- 
 wards in my thoughts. Moreover, 1 exceedingly doubted at the time, 
 
17 
 
 nor Imve I since seen any reason to alter my opinion, whether the 
 author himself saw, with any tolerable distinctness, to what point he 
 Avas tending-, or what the exact value of his own statements was; and 
 he appeared to me in effect, if not in express terms, himself to acknow- 
 ledge the case to be so, by declininfy in person to gather them up, and 
 compact them manfully into the basis of a tangible argument, and by 
 leaving it rather to others to draw from them what inferences they 
 might appear to them severally to yield. 
 
 What various and plausible constructions Dr. Lee's words may, by 
 possibility, admit of, I cannot of course pretend to conjecture, for to 
 these there can obviously be no other limit than the ingenuity of the 
 interpreter, and the vagueness of the document on which he operates. 
 For my own part, therefore, hardly any exhibition of dexterity in this 
 May, would greatly surprise me. But this 1 will say, that 1 shall be 
 very considerably surprised indeed, if the evidence to which I have 
 referred, leave on an impartial and upright mind, the conviction, that 
 it was not calculated, in a manner which could hardly have been acci- 
 dental or undesigned, to operate generally against the scheme of 
 Church Extension, which is at present recommended and pursued by 
 
 the Church of Scotland. 
 
 P. C. Macdolgall. 
 Stockbridge, 1th March, 1837. 
 
Princeton Theoloaical Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01213 3122